The problem would be a lot easier to solve if America were actually group of United States. Wouldn't that be great ? A United States of America. U.S.A. has a good ring to it don't ya think ?Instead, America is more like 50 different countries who all happen to drive on the same side of the road. and use the same currency. I guess that makes things simpler.

This issue will probably need something akin to the Civil Rights Movement, in order for some common sense to be applied. The issue is a simple one and if the people want it to be changed then they have the power to do it.

I would like to see firearms licensed with the licensees required to undergo safety and use training periodically, and to store their arms safely when not in use. I would also like to see limits on the ability to carry firearms in crowded places like cities where their indescriminate use can cause harm to innocent bystanders.

We do have some common sense measures in place.

You can't buy mail order, you have to have a background check run, you can't buy if you're a convicted felon or mentally ill, there are a number of prohibited items, not just automatic firing but those with features like short barrels, the dreaded bayonet lug; in some states there are long waiting periods, limits on guns per month, limits on magazine size, etc. If your spouse has a restraining order they will confiscate your guns until it expires. If you do a firearm crime there is usually a mandatory long prison sentence.

It's not like there haven't been some attempts. But a) this is not easy given the inventory already out there, and the unique American propensity for solving problems by shooting people, and b) most of these will have their impact, if there is any, on the more common deaths. It's hard to see what kind of "common sense" control measure will work for the sophisticated lone sniper scenario.

I still think that fiddling about with piecemeal prohibitions on this attachment or that barrel length is insignificant compared to addressing attitudes of firearms users. Guns are a tool, and like any tool, can be used or misused.

Surely US policeman and soldiers have an annual weapons handling and marksmanship test? Fail it and you can't carry a firearm on duty, or at least I would certainly hope so. I remember hearing somewhere that a high proportion of US gun injuries and deaths are people shooting themselves or a family member by accident. It's the competence and attitude of the bearer that is important, not the precise design of the firearm.

Extending the Police/Armed forces test to all gun owners seems a logical and reasonable step (derived from the "well regulated" bit of the 2nd Amendment). I think some kind of education about why the Amendment exists, what it's for, Rousseau Social Contract etc etc would also gradually make a cultural change. The guns cease to become an accessory for an American, and become a serious element of democratic responsibility, just like enfranchisement.

But what about the illegally held guns? Surely the great majority of gun crime is committed with illegally possessed guns. Robberies, gang fights etc as timothy42b says, rather than the relatively rare lone wolf going crazy. But is this even true? Can anyone tell me what proportion of gun crime in the USA is committed with legally possessed firearms?

The shooter at Columbine took his father's gun. The shooter at Sandy Hook killed his mother and took her gun. This kind of thing can't be fixed with legislation; although people talk about biological locks like fingerprint detectors to prevent a weapon from being fired except by the registered owner.

I like the idea of safety testing and training. I've always considered the "well regulated militia" part of the phrase to refer to National Guard and Reserves groups, not a bunch of rag-tag gun nuts with Rambo fantasies. I understand that firearms have their uses and if you want to hunt or target shoot that's a valid reason. But I don't see the use of a modified Military style weapon for these activities. Collectors generally don't want to actually use their specimens and a modification to prevent their being used would be appropriate.

There's an awful lot we can do about illegal guns! First off, maybe have some way to actually check if they are indeed illegal?

For example, in some states, you can buy a handgun privately - no background check - and then carry it concealed with no training or permit. It's actually a current push by the NRA to expand this option.

So you have a gun with no record of purchase, no records run for the user, and carried in a concealed way without any paperwork. Is that legal? Maybe the gun was stolen. Maybe the user is a felon? In some states, that only applies to residents, they could be from out of state. And how would you know if it's illegal?

How can you do something about illegal guns if it's damn hard to tell if they are even illegal to start with?

Far less than most any other areas... such as cars. A quick check can tell if the driver is licensed, what their record is, what cars they own and are insured under, and if they have medical issues that may temporarily prevent them from effectively operating a car... such as seizures in the past year.

in some states there are long waiting periods, limits on guns per month, limits on magazine size, etc. If your spouse has a restraining order they will confiscate your guns until it expires. If you do a firearm crime there is usually a mandatory long prison sentence.

To be clear, these are state specific. People drive across the state line for cheaper gas and commodities and taxes on a regular basis. A state by state issue with certain aspects are hardly meaningful when you can readily circumvent them. Especially when there is no documentation or records to go along with it.

Can you imagine if new car safety standards were mandated state by state? And not a big state like CA, but different between OK and AR and MO and the like? They'd be useless and confusing as hell!

It's not like there haven't been some attempts. But a) this is not easy given the inventory already out there, and the unique American propensity for solving problems by shooting people, and b) most of these will have their impact, if there is any, on the more common deaths. It's hard to see what kind of "common sense" control measure will work for the sophisticated lone sniper scenario.

The last part is actually important. Not for what it is, but what it is not. It is not specific or intelligent. It is lumping all gun crimes together as one. And in that case, no answer will impact the broad crimes, just one specific area. As such, these different areas need to be looked at an addressed specifically.

A drive by gang shooting is remarkably different than the type of mass shooting that just occurred.

Mass shootings are an issue unto themselves. And they have some very strong commonalities across them. Take a subset of that... "rampage" shootings. Basically shootings of four or more where the actual targets don't matter... such as Las Vegas. He was shooting to kill people, didn't matter who.

In that case, the shooters are almost entirely white, Christian, and male. And their targets are almost entirely "safe places". Churches, schools, large peaceful public gatherings like concerts or movie theaters... Very different demographic doing the shooting, with very different motivations, and different targets.

Tim mentions "the dreaded bayonet lug" sarcastically, but that actually quite important to the mass shooter crowd. There, it's the image of the gun more than the functionality. A bayonet lug is useless. But it gives that illusion of a more military weapon, more waging war, more rage/travesty.

And remember who this group is again... The AR-15 crowd? A gun that's looks and little civilian purpose other than "target shooting"? NRA members. GOP members. Heavily white men, and not exactly youthful. The same group that has quite a high suicide rate because they feel like they should be powerful socially but instead feels impotent. Image is everything. And unfortunately, the image that is sold with an AR-15 is far from responsible.

For example, in some states, you can buy a handgun privately - no background check - and then carry it concealed with no training or permit. It's actually a current push by the NRA to expand this option.

Which states allow concealed carry (or open) w/o a permit or certification of some sort?

Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.

- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves. - Richard Feynman- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool. - Confucius

//////// illinois ///chicago --extremely gun control statutes /// effectively limiting ''legal'' use-ownership of those who might be the most exposed to violent crimes home invasion armed robbery car jacking unlawful entry trespass sexual assault organized criminal groups use by minors and other carriers of various firearms and other weapons ============================================= depending upon law enforcement and first responder aid in the event of interaction with perpetrators with criminal intent and use of force --leaves the victims often dead injured disabled and robbed beat up stabbed shot sexually assaulted friends family children as well =============================================== the use of firearms to solve problems is widely promoted thru various media video gamingaction and documentary films mystery novels westerns si-fi spy and other ---on the flip side the total distaste disgust and opposition to any type of resistance to those predatory persons================so actually the numbers of citizens who are learning and those who have carried concealed firearmsare on the increase along with insurance to protect them from law enforcement in the event they may have used or been intercepted after self defense or simply being stopped while travelling ================== america continues to engage in military actions and the law enforcement persons are increasinglyclothed and armed mentally and physically to engage with deadly force when feeling threatened and even when not threatened ---there may be some who feel that the founders of this country enacted and embraced freedoms that run contrary to the ambitions means of control and certain occasion of governance ////======================== since all US citizens are all fattened and disarmed like sheep and cattle to those from other cultures --they are a herd ready obey --former freedoms considered foolishnessin the paradise of total love and peace tie yellow ribbons and burn all nations flags erase borders make museums of armories still the fighter jets and bombers dismantle all nuclear warheads beach the submarines and enjoy music and the arts healing medical care food shelter and kindness to species trees waters atmosphere --====================================== some want to protect //some need to be protected //some want to protect themselves =======================================what do YOU want ?????????????

You can't buy mail order, you have to have a background check run, you can't buy if you're a convicted felon or mentally ill, there are a number of prohibited items, not just automatic firing but those with features like short barrels, the dreaded bayonet lug; in some states there are long waiting periods, limits on guns per month, limits on magazine size, etc. If your spouse has a restraining order they will confiscate your guns until it expires. If you do a firearm crime there is usually a mandatory long prison sentence.

It's not like there haven't been some attempts. But a) this is not easy given the inventory already out there, and the unique American propensity for solving problems by shooting people, and b) most of these will have their impact, if there is any, on the more common deaths. It's hard to see what kind of "common sense" control measure will work for the sophisticated lone sniper scenario.

====================================== some want to protect //some need to be protected //some want to protect themselves =======================================what do YOU want ?????????????

Ideally, to not live in a society where people are so scared of each other and paranoid that they take even more risky measures and try to talk themselves into a state of readiness to kill a stranger with no actual reason. Maybe instead, to live in a society where matters of life and death "protection" in the daily life are rare and people can focus on much better things.

illinois ///chicago --extremely gun control statutes /// effectively limiting ''legal'' use-ownership of those who might be the most exposed to violent crimes home invasion armed robbery car jacking unlawful entry trespass sexual assault organized criminal groups use by minors and other carriers of various firearms and other weapons

Such localized rules are of little use in this type of issue.

I used to live in a dry town. All you had to do was go just past the town limits, and there was a grocery store selling beer and wine.

Like going down 95 through the Carolinas. The instant you get into South Carolina, the fireworks stores appear. And so north carolinians who want fireworks for celebrations get them readily and easily.